Tweet
Mhhh.. let's bench with ma little sweet G550.
-
Yours faithfully,
The AngeL @ Unreal Soldier -
got 820 3DMarks
Standard-Settings @ non-overclocked XP1800+ System with noAA
Edit: with the new 1.3.1.2 Driver i've got 823 3DMarks
Last edited by Moosmutzel; 12 February 2003, 04:34.Comment
-
Same here.Originally posted by The AngeL
Mhhh.. let's bench with ma little sweet G550.
Let's hope we get above 10 pts.
Now... a whooping of 50 pts will be nice
And let's hope Matrox make the dx8-INCOMPETIBLE VS/T&L to work.
... that is if the hardware supports any of the 3d feature caps...
i have a feeling that full software emulation will be faster
Comment
-
Originally posted by Moosmutzel
got 820 3DMarks
Standard-Settings @ non-overclocked XP1800+ System with noAA
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=16636
aaHHH!!!! A7A266. ALi M1647 sucks *%^(*
i burnt that stupid board up
Comment
-
970 3dmarks with the parhelia at 232/614 and the cpu at 1.91ghz...
Last edited by K6-III; 11 February 2003, 20:15.Let us return to the moon, to stay!!!Comment
-
Damn... I need to OC some more to beat you K6-III
EDIT:
mine
Last edited by WyWyWyWy; 11 February 2003, 20:23.P4 Northwood 1.8GHz@2.7GHz 1.65V Albatron PX845PEV Pro
Running two Dell 2005FPW 20" Widescreen LCD
And of course, Matrox Parhelia | My Matrox histroy: Mill-I, Mill-II, Mystique, G400, ParheliaComment
-
lol. nothing works with G550. gotta wait for 3d analyze hehe
gonna try it on my R8500
Comment
-
Ladies and gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and slide on the ice.Comment
-
I got 1128.
I think faster Videocard results in much higher score than a faster CPU does.MSI K8N Neo 2 Platinum
AMD Athlon 64 3200
1024 MB PC3200 RAM
WD 160 GB HDD
2 x 80 GB Maxtor HDDs in RAID 1
ATI 9500 64 Videocard
Pioneer 108 DVD-RW
Pioneer 117 DVD-ROM
Windows XP Professional SP2Comment
-
Just remember ....
For non DX9 cards the score will be low since they cannot run the Mother Earth test which affects the score BIG time.
The same thing was the case when 3Dmark2001 came out.
GF3 didn't score very well in 3DMark 2001 because they couldn't run the Nature test.Fear, Makes Wise Men Foolish !
incentivize transparent paradigmsComment
-
Ooh, ran it again on WinXP and got 974! I'm l33t, your Parhelia suxorz!!! What a PoS benchmark. People were thinking they were going to biased towards nVidia, but it seems they were bought out by ATI instead. I'd link my scrore, but whata know, they're having "technical difficulties", I.E. someone probably found a bug that lets their Matrox Mystique get 300,000,000 3DFarts or something.
Comment
-
Just watch me break 1000 tomorrow...Let us return to the moon, to stay!!!Comment
-
That would be the GF2 my friend.Originally posted by Kosh Naranek
The same thing was the case when 3Dmark2001 came out.
GF3 didn't score very well in 3DMark 2001 because they couldn't run the Nature test.
Comment
-
574 3DMarks here.
some tests showed me 0 fps heh.
Comment
-
There's more in life than just pc gaming...
Incredible - 885 (1st run)
& 886 (2nd run) 
points.
Specs: Ph-A128R (@ default clocks, without FAA, 16.8 mio. colors, 1.3.0.43 drv), P4 - 2.667 gigs, 512 MB DDR-SD (@266 MHz, latencies: 222-5), i845G chipset, SB Audigy and Win2k SP3 with DX9
Hope the upcoming DX9 drivers will fix the troubles in gt2, 3 and vertex shader tests. More comparable results would be better for matrox and all of us.Last edited by JaG; 13 February 2003, 02:09.Comment
Comment